Quantum entangled-photon Chinese satellite.

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 07:19:19AM +0200, Bastiani Fortress wrote:
>    As i can remember, the point was when two particles are entangled,
>    they bear the same quantum state, and they simultaneously shift
>    their states önce either of them is "observed".

And if you 'observe' at the other side, you can determine that the first
side was already observed. Apparently.

Which is 1 bit (perhaps 1/2 a bit) of data transfer.

If this is not the case, then the descriptions on this list so far are
ambiguous to the point of not being interpretable... which would be
unfortunate.

I think someone's gonna have to try explaining again..


>    So you know that the other twin is in the same state, but you
>    cannot code it at will, and since you don't know its first state
>    without having "observed" it, you cannot determine whether the
>    other twin has been observed or not (that would be 1 bit of data
>    streaming).  This is what i remember from what i read years ago,
>    please correct me if i'm wrong.
>
>    5:11 AM, August 5, 2016, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com>:
> 
>      On Fri, 5 Aug 2016 11:29:07 +1000
>      Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
> 
>       On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:58:11PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
>       > From: juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com>
>       > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 16:49:12 +0000 (UTC)
>       > jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>       >   >  If 'something' is moving at faster than light speed, then some
>       >   > information must be being transmitted. If no information is
>       > >    being transmitted, then by definition, there's no way to
>       > > measure
>       >   >  speed and the claim makes no sense.
>       > Well, that's the problem.  Knowing that SOMETHING is being
>       > transmitted, and actuallyUSING that method to transmit useful
>       > information, are (quite strangely) two differentthings.  That, also
>       > is the amazing implications of entangled photons.
>       It does sound like the obvious is being missed - so entangled photon
>       paris can be created, and we can know at one end, if the photon at the
>       other end is "read", and this apparently happens at at a minimum of
>       10k.c;
>       Surely, one could simply create a suitably large number of entangled
>       photon pairs, as an array, and then read them, or not read them, at
>       the end you want to "send" information from, and "detect" (so this
>       weird quantum mechanics story goes) those reads at the other end.
>       Read + Not read = 1 bit.
>       What seems to be implied in the stories so far is that the information
>       must be transmitted through changing states of a single entangled
>       photon
>       - which assumption makes no sense at all. There's a purported
>       phenomena, use it!
> 
>              Yep. It either works or not. And if it works you should be able
>              to get some 'macroscopic' result/data transmission (of course
>              the micro/macro divide is just pseudo-scientific, absurd
>              bullshit)
>              I don't know if it works or not, though I notice that Cari
>              posted a source claiming
>              "Everyone agrees that quantum entanglement does not allow
>              information to be transmitted faster that light. "
>              I take that to mean that the authorities don't actually agree,
>              although perhaps the majority says : no.
>              Regardless, if there is something propagates at faster than
>              light speed, then it should be possible to send information
>              using that AND there would be nothing absurd about that,
>              contrary to Jim B's abssurd defense of absurd, pseudo
>              cientific 'interpretations'.
>              http://www.dictionary.com/browse/absurd?s=t
>              "utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue"
>              It should be self-evident that absurdities have no place in
>              science or even in philosophy.
> 
>       What are we missing here?
> 
>    --
>    You’re not from the Castle, you’re not from the village, you are nothing. Unfortunately, though, you are something, a
>    stranger.

-- 
Free Australia: www.UPMART.org
Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.